What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4875320 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant must, by Monday 1 July 2024, remove all rubbish from the premises,

How much money was awarded in case 4875320?

Undertake The Work And Charge The Te…: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4875320?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4875320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10465730-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4875320 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant must, by Monday 1 July 2024, remove all rubbish from the premises,

How much money was awarded in case 4875320?

Undertake The Work And Charge The Te…: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4875320?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4875320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10465730-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 7, 530 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4875320 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4875320. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to	$3,000.00		undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to

Order

The tenant must, by Monday 1 July 2024, remove all rubbish from the premises, remove the red Mazda car that is parked in the communal parking area and do all other things that are necessary to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
If the tenant fails to comply with Order 1 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $3000. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced as such.
The case will be closed, but the landlord may apply to reopen it if the application to reopen is made by 29 July 2024.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Ms Maturan-Abuid attended for the landlord. The tenant did not attend. Calls made at the time of the hearing to the two numbers provided for the tenant went straight to voicemail.
The landlord claims that the tenant has accumulated rubbish and other items in and around the premises so that the premises are not in a reasonably clean and tidy state and the situation poses a health and safety risk. The landlord wants the problem fixed.
Under section 40(1)(a)-(e), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a tenant has certain obligations in relation to the premises. They include to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Where the Tribunal finds that the tenant has failed to comply with any of these obligations, where appropriate, it may make an order for the tenant to carry out work to remedy the breach. See section 78(1)(e) of the Act.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order that relates to any requirement concerning health and safety under any enactment.
A work order may also authorise the landlord to undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of doing the work if the tenant fails to comply with the work order and (where appropriate) an alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) of the Act. Evidence and Decision
The landlord provided recent photographs of the premises showing the interior of them to be crammed with rubbish and other items to the extent that a person would not be able to move around and through the premises without considerable difficulty if at all.
That creates an obvious danger to the tenant and to others in the vicinity. There is an increased risk of fire and in the event of a fire the tenant and anyone else in the premises would have difficulty escaping them.
As well, the rubbish in the premises includes food and probably other perishable items which are or will become a hazard to human health by attracting vermin and becoming unsanitary.
There is also a car belonging to the tenant parked in the communal parking area. It is partly on blocks, and it is plainly undrivable. It is an eyesore, and it may attract vandals.
There is no doubt that the tenant is in breach of his obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant’s breach relates to heath and safety. For example, the Health Act 1956 makes provision for dwellings that are unfit for human habitation and for cases where a dwelling becomes a nuisance. There is therefore no need to make an alternative monetary order in this case.
It is appropriate to make a work order requiring the tenant to remedy his breach and an order authorising the landlord to do so if the tenant fails to remedy the breach within two weeks. I note that the tenant has already carried some work around the outside of the premises, and he has assured the landlord that he will remove the car by 21 June 2024 being the end of the current week.
If the tenant does not comply with the work order and the landlord is required to remove rubbish and other items, they will need to do so in conjunction with the tenant to the extent that is possible. Decisions will need to be made as to what is rubbish, what are items that should be dumped, what can go into storage (the tenant has a storage facility away from the premises) and what are items that the tenant should reasonably be permitted to keep on the premises.
I have not given any directions as how that should be done because that is impractical. The object of this exercise is obviously to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Some things will be easily identifiable as rubbish. Other things will be identifiable as having no use or value. Others may be more difficult to categorise, and the parties may not be able to agree on whether they should be removed from the premises. If those items can be stored elsewhere, that will overcome the difficulty.
The landlord has proposed $6000 as the monetary limit on the costs that they can charge for removing rubbish and other items. That is a substantial sum of money, and it was not supported by any estimate or breakdown. I am not willing to authorise such a large cost to be incurred without better evidence. I accept that there is a large quantity of material at the premises and cost or removing it could be considerable. I have therefore put a monetary limit of $3,000 on the costs that can be charged. If the cost exceeds that, the landlord can either bear them themselves or apply to the Tribunal for a further order supported by better evidence.
If it becomes impossible to restore the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state because the tenant will not allow items to be removed, the landlord may have to return to the Tribunal for a further order. I have therefore given the landlord the opportunity to restore the application for hearing within the next six weeks. The case will be closed in the meantime and if no application to reopen is made within six weeks, the case will remain closed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4875320. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to	$3,000.00		undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to

Order

The tenant must, by Monday 1 July 2024, remove all rubbish from the premises, remove the red Mazda car that is parked in the communal parking area and do all other things that are necessary to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
If the tenant fails to comply with Order 1 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $3000. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced as such.
The case will be closed, but the landlord may apply to reopen it if the application to reopen is made by 29 July 2024.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Ms Maturan-Abuid attended for the landlord. The tenant did not attend. Calls made at the time of the hearing to the two numbers provided for the tenant went straight to voicemail.
The landlord claims that the tenant has accumulated rubbish and other items in and around the premises so that the premises are not in a reasonably clean and tidy state and the situation poses a health and safety risk. The landlord wants the problem fixed.
Under section 40(1)(a)-(e), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a tenant has certain obligations in relation to the premises. They include to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Where the Tribunal finds that the tenant has failed to comply with any of these obligations, where appropriate, it may make an order for the tenant to carry out work to remedy the breach. See section 78(1)(e) of the Act.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order that relates to any requirement concerning health and safety under any enactment.
A work order may also authorise the landlord to undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of doing the work if the tenant fails to comply with the work order and (where appropriate) an alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) of the Act. Evidence and Decision
The landlord provided recent photographs of the premises showing the interior of them to be crammed with rubbish and other items to the extent that a person would not be able to move around and through the premises without considerable difficulty if at all.
That creates an obvious danger to the tenant and to others in the vicinity. There is an increased risk of fire and in the event of a fire the tenant and anyone else in the premises would have difficulty escaping them.
As well, the rubbish in the premises includes food and probably other perishable items which are or will become a hazard to human health by attracting vermin and becoming unsanitary.
There is also a car belonging to the tenant parked in the communal parking area. It is partly on blocks, and it is plainly undrivable. It is an eyesore, and it may attract vandals.
There is no doubt that the tenant is in breach of his obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant’s breach relates to heath and safety. For example, the Health Act 1956 makes provision for dwellings that are unfit for human habitation and for cases where a dwelling becomes a nuisance. There is therefore no need to make an alternative monetary order in this case.
It is appropriate to make a work order requiring the tenant to remedy his breach and an order authorising the landlord to do so if the tenant fails to remedy the breach within two weeks. I note that the tenant has already carried some work around the outside of the premises, and he has assured the landlord that he will remove the car by 21 June 2024 being the end of the current week.
If the tenant does not comply with the work order and the landlord is required to remove rubbish and other items, they will need to do so in conjunction with the tenant to the extent that is possible. Decisions will need to be made as to what is rubbish, what are items that should be dumped, what can go into storage (the tenant has a storage facility away from the premises) and what are items that the tenant should reasonably be permitted to keep on the premises.
I have not given any directions as how that should be done because that is impractical. The object of this exercise is obviously to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Some things will be easily identifiable as rubbish. Other things will be identifiable as having no use or value. Others may be more difficult to categorise, and the parties may not be able to agree on whether they should be removed from the premises. If those items can be stored elsewhere, that will overcome the difficulty.
The landlord has proposed $6000 as the monetary limit on the costs that they can charge for removing rubbish and other items. That is a substantial sum of money, and it was not supported by any estimate or breakdown. I am not willing to authorise such a large cost to be incurred without better evidence. I accept that there is a large quantity of material at the premises and cost or removing it could be considerable. I have therefore put a monetary limit of $3,000 on the costs that can be charged. If the cost exceeds that, the landlord can either bear them themselves or apply to the Tribunal for a further order supported by better evidence.
If it becomes impossible to restore the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state because the tenant will not allow items to be removed, the landlord may have to return to the Tribunal for a further order. I have therefore given the landlord the opportunity to restore the application for hearing within the next six weeks. The case will be closed in the meantime and if no application to reopen is made within six weeks, the case will remain closed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4875320 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 7, 530 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4875320 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 7, 530 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions